Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux

Ian Stirling
2006-08-02T18:13:31Z

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com> writes:
>
>
>>IMHO the best alternative for a situation like that is a storage
>>controller with a battery-backed cache and a hunk of flash NVRAM for
>>when the power shuts off (just in case you run out of battery), as
>>well as a separate 1GB battery-backed PCI ramdisk for an external
>>journal device (likewise equipped with flash NVRAM). It doesn't take

> Not sure - reading flash is fast, but writing is quite slow.
> A digital camera can consume a set of 2 or 4 2500 mAh AA cells
> for a fraction of 1 GB (of course, only a part of power goes
> to flash).

Yeah - that's why I said in the original message that it's not
especially lower in energy - the energy is used at a lower rate,
so is much cheaper to supply.
http://www.samsung.com/products/semiconductor/NORFlash/256Mbit/K8A5615EBA/K8A5615EBA.htm
's datasheet says to program the 32Mbyte chip takes about 30mw*120s, or
3.5J or so.
For a gigabyte, that's 100J - a fairly substantial amount of energy.
However - it's at a low rate, so it's not _too_ expensive to supply.